Assess the reasoning of the researcher.

Question

A researcher reasons that people who read newspapers are likely to be more knowledgeable about personal finance than readers of tabloid newspapers. He interviews 100 people about the newspaper they read and their level of financial knowledge. Sixty five people read tabloid and thirty five read broadsheets. He finds that the broadsheets readers are on average considerably more knowledgeable about personal finance than tabloid readers. He concludes that reading broadsheets enhances levels of knowledge of personal finance. Assess his reasoning.

Answer 1

I think this is a simple example of correlation being confused with causation. The researcher starts with a hypothesis based on his personal observations or assumptions. He apparently tested his hypothesis, but his conclusion may or may not be correct. He may have accurately concluded that newspaper reading is positively correlated with knowledge of personal finance, but unless he monitored this over time, he would have no way of knowing that reading newspapers increased knowledge of personal finance. All he can accurately conclude, assuming he has selected a representative sample of the population, is that his data suggest that people who read newspapers are more knowledgeable about personal finance than those who read tabloids.